Interesting quote found on quitfacebook... "Our brains are no match for our technology". But our technology is a direct result of our brains. So, put it very simply, is it matching when we do good things with it and not matching when we do bad things? Any thoughts?
Technology is a form of art, formalized after N iterations. I doubt we can judge technology only in terms of STEM (utility). Morality is disconnected from technology per se as it's only a result of using it. Therefore, I would extend your argument into question whether human is inherently evil because he finds a way to misuse technology?
Depends on your theory of art: what if it's just conspicuous consumption of productive capacity? What if, as Adam Savage recently said, there is no differentiation between making [ie, the use and creation of technology] and art?
Well, I thought more in terms of emergence of innovative technology. Ie. Medicine began as purely empirical art, the need to organize knowledge was secondary to exercising judgment based on experience.
Login or register to reply
Your empirical art and exercising judgment based on experience makes me weirdly think about the work of some theoretical physicists. Especially those studying Dr. Wolfram Cellular Automata Theory of unification. They basically are at the same stage of discovering the raw art, the emergence properties and potential descriptive power of the theory as well as organizing their knowledge around it...
Wow. I didn't go that deep, mostly not to get discussion into the puddle of unverifiable claims and my lack of knowledge in physics. But, yes. I do think that STEM is on a road to become less formalized and deal more with problems by deploying tools more similar to an art than, well, formalized logic. This doesn't mean some New Age crap and throwing away logic in full. It's more about human indisposition to perfectly understand causality in terms of strict logical rigor.